Comprehensive Analysis of Hundred Blades Compared to the Auto Attack Chain

[oscuro.9720]

Hundred Blades is not great. This post will look at Hundred Blades as compared to its auto attack using Coefficient/Cast Time as the primary metric of evaluation. We will then take into account the vulnerability on the auto attack to see how that affects the damage difference between the auto attack chain and 100 blades. Finally, we can compare this difference to other damage-oriented channels and their respective auto attacks to see another metric across which Hundred Blades under-performs. 

 

To start, we will calculate the Hundred Blades ratio and auto attack ratio step by step;

 

Hundred Blades: 

Coefficient: 2.8 + 0.8 = 3.6

The first figure is the coefficient for the first 8 strikes of 100blades. The second is the value of the final strike, since 100blades is an end loaded skill. 

 

Cast Time: 3.5

Pretty basic. The skill is a 3.5s channel. For channels, we will not be including aftercasts. Mostly because I already did the math without it, and the average added time for aftercast is .04 seconds, so its overall impact is fairly negligible. 

 

Coefficient/second (C/S): 3.6 / 3.5 = 1.0286

Again, a simple conversion. For differentiation, we will be calling this C/S. It is simply the coefficient divided by the cast time. All figures will be carried out to 4 decimal places. 

 

Now, we will calculate the auto attack. The system for doing so is slightly different, so we will, again, carry it out step by step.

 

Auto Attack:

Coefficient: .469 + .6365 + 1.25 = 2.355

Here, we are summating the coefficient value for each of the three skills in the auto attack chain. 

 

Cast Time: 2.4s

The ordinary cast times are 1/2s per strike. However, aftercasts become quite impactful for melee auto attacks. Per the wiki (notes at the bottom of the first skill of the auto attack chain), the total chain takes 2.4s including aftercasts. This is the value we will be using. 

 

C/S: 2.355 / 2.4 = .9813

 

Having calculated the Coefficient per second ration (C/S), which is essentially just damage per second provided all other values are consistent (weapon strength, power, opponent armor), we can now compare a ratio of Hundred Blades and the Auto Attack to get an understanding of the % increase in average damage per second that is derived from using Hundred Blades instead of Auto Attack:

 

Hundred Blades C/S / Auto Attack C/S: 1.0286 / .9813 = 1.0481

 

What this figure means is that Hundred blades does 1.0481 times the damage of auto attack, or, in other words, 4.81% more damage per second. This is not factoring in the fact that 22.22% of hundred blade’s damage is on the final strike, or the fact that the auto attack will add vulnerability, slightly increasing its value.

 

The added vulnerability made me curious, so I decided to go through and compare the value of real damage/second of the auto attack chain when factoring in vulnerability compared to 100 blades. In order to do this, we need a different calculation, taking the total number of strikes that can be landed in the same time period as 100 blades, and factoring in the vulnerability in order to compare the raw coefficients. 

 

In 3.5 seconds, the full auto chain plus the first two strikes of the next auto chain can be landed. Given the vulnerability lasts a minimum of 6 seconds, we know that it will continue to compound. The calculations are as follows:

 

Auto Attack:

 

Coefficient:
.469 + (.6365 * 1.01) + (1.25 * 1.02) + (.469 * 1.02) + (.6365 * 1.03) = 

.469 + .64287 + 1.275 + .4784 + .6556 = 3.521

 

We can then compare this to the full 100 blades coefficient since the cast times are equalized, resulting in the following;

 

Coefficient Comparison: 3.6 / 3.521 = 1.0224

 

This means that, when accounting for vulnerability, Hundred Blades does 2.24% more damage than the auto attack if the final strike lands. For this 2.25% increase in damage, the user incurs the following costs;

 

Movement lock, 8 second cooldown

 

This is not good. Looking at the difference in these calculation on other damage-centered channel skills, we get the following ratios plus the added benefits over 100blades:

 

Whirling Wrath vs Auto: 5.001 + PbAoE, not rooted (most similar skill for comparison imo) 

 

Rapid Fire vs Auto: 1.833 + 10 vulnerability

 

Ghastly Claws vs Auto: 2.2853 + Ranged

 

Zealots Defense vs Auto: 2.6185 + ranged, tracking, projectile block

 

Average: 2.9346

 

Admittedly, Whirling Wrath pulls this up quite a bit, though this skill is the best analog for Hundred Blades in my opinion. The average without Whirling Wrath is: 2.2457

 

How could we equalize this? If you were to use the average auto attack ratios by altering the cast time, Hundred Blades would need to following cast times:

 

For a 2.9346 ratio: 1.25s cast time

 

For a 2.2457 ratio: 1.6336s cast time.

 

I do not feel this is an appropriate way to come to this decision, and do not recommend an adjustment to these values. This post’s main illustration is to focus on how 100 blades barely outperforms its auto attack, and is significantly weaker compared to its auto attack than other damage-focused channel skills. 

 

I will be making another post comparing 100 blades to other skills using Coefficient/Cast Time, which I think is a better way to determine a properly adjusted cast time. 

Edited July 13, 2022 by oscuro.9720

[oscuro.9720]

@Jzaku.9765i did it in a more comprehensive manner, not just a thought exercise, actual useful numbers now 🙂 

[Jzaku.9765]

It seems to me like 100b was balanced around traited Forceful GS letting it rack up might with it's cleaving multi hit. 

Which is of course an extremely unfair way to balance the skill because the power level of the skill without this trait is total garbage. Really, the power level of 100b is really bad regardless. I agree that the coeff/cast time comparisons to other skills would be very useful.

 

Not that this design trend is uncommon to Warrior - Pistol vs OH Axe is also almost entirely dependent on Fierce as Fire giving pistol a purpose. 

[oscuro.9720]

19 hours ago, Jzaku.9765 said:

It seems to me like 100b was balanced around traited Forceful GS letting it rack up might with it's cleaving multi hit. 

Which is of course an extremely unfair way to balance the skill because the power level of the skill without this trait is total garbage. Really, the power level of 100b is really bad regardless. I agree that the coeff/cast time comparisons to other skills would be very useful.

 

Not that this design trend is uncommon to Warrior - Pistol vs OH Axe is also almost entirely dependent on Fierce as Fire giving pistol a purpose. 

Yea, I could see that. I still don’t think it would get its coefficient/cast time up to par with other melee, damage only channels. For reference, I tested about 8 channel skills, and the only one close to 100blades is blurred frenzy, which should be alarming. And even then, blurred frenzy has a higher coefficient/cast time than 100 blades (1.089 vs 1.045). 
 

100 blades should probably be somewhere around a 1.5 C/S minimum based on what I’ve seen (edit; specifically, a 2.0 C/S would probably be best, don’t by both decreasing cast and increasing coefficient, into something like a 2.25s cast time with a 3.6 multiplier on the first 8 strikes and a 1 multiplier on the final strike) . It’s looking like this should balance out to a 2 second cast time with a coefficient increase. Feel that anything under 2 seconds starts to become a little insane. 
 

I’m actually looking for more analysis to do on warrior skills, as I want to try to build some sort of skill-balancing model based on cost-benefit weighting, so pistol vs OH axe is a pretty good one that is quite pertinent to a lot of people, so I’ll look into that one in the future 🙂 

Edited July 13, 2022 by oscuro.9720

[eXruina.4956]

og gs was fine before years of nerfs, even halfway through the nerfs over the years it held its place as warrior's best weapon, gs kit had everything warrior needed to function, still does today except its pretty much 1/4 the weapon it used to be, gs enabled and completed warrior, a perfectly functioning weapon before they decided to f* its damage coefficient, cd and range into oblivion. 

 

i wouldn't mind going back to using og gs in all its former glory, with its old damage coefficients, cd and range.

 

i have no idea why they had to break a perfectly functioning mechanic such as gs. much like how i don't understand why they had to break regeneration and def tree when they introduced the might heal system, and they should really have put all that into tactics, instead of splitting it between strength and tactics. this way it'll either be choose one kind of sustain or the other, or choose both have really good sustain but deal kitten damage. that would've been the sensible route.

 

warrior used to be so diverse too, with its many weapon options, sure there were sub optimal options to be sure but the many weapons were viable and effective to an extent, filling different functions and playstyles for those who learned to use them.

 

they pretty much broke everything.

 

i feel like a skritt trapped in an illusion that there are many shinies, but the truth is there really are no shinies. NO SHINIES!

 

filthy mesmers.

[Mungrul.9358]

3 hours ago, eXruina.4956 said:

filthy mesmers.

This is a long shot and completely off-topic, but that's not, by any chance, a Myth: The Fallen Lords reference, is it? 😄

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

@oscuro.9720, all things I've calculated and posted about in the past in threads long since buried. It's good to see someone else produce the same work and conclusions. 

@Josh Davis.7865, forgive me for @'ing you again, but this is a great example for you and the balance team to review. You've stated in the Engi Rifle rework that skill 2 should be a damage positive skill. Well, Hundred Blades is barely damage positive, and comes with a large drawback with the self root. As Oscuro states in his post, to bring it on par with the AVERAGE of other channeled skills it would have to have a 1.25-1.5s cast time (depending if you include the Guardian outlier or not), or higher damage values.  Greatsword on warrior isn't the only one showing it's age like this either. Swords (both hands), Hammer, Maces (both hands), OH Dagger, Longbow, and even Rifle despite the ammo rework are all subpar weapons. 

[eXruina.4956]

4 hours ago, Mungrul.9358 said:

This is a long shot and completely off-topic, but that's not, by any chance, a Myth: The Fallen Lords reference, is it? 😄

no it is not 😁

[Mungrul.9358]

Aaaw!

 

The last mission of that game features a dwarf in a desperate dash towards a massive hole you need to chuck a head in to while an enraged fallen lord, Soulblighter, decimates your allies behind you while growling "FILTHY DWARVES!"

[Hotride.2187]

Just give it 1.5-2 sec (self) quickness on cast. That'd also give you the option to stow and use the quickness for some surprise animations.

If you reduce the cast time to like 2 sec, people would melt if you also happen to have quickness.

Or let it cleave infront of you in a cone (like 300-450 radius), maybe it'd be more useful if it can actually hit someone/multiple someones. You know, like DMC the million stabs move:

(this is actually during dance macabre but you get the idea)

Edited July 13, 2022 by Hotride.2187

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

18 minutes ago, Hotride.2187 said:

Just give it 1.5-2 sec (self) quickness on cast. That'd also give you the option to stow and use the quickness for some surprise animations.

If you reduce the cast time to like 2 sec, people would melt if you also happen to have quickness.

Or let it cleave infront of you in a cone (like 300-450 radius), maybe it'd be more useful if it can actually hit someone/multiple someones. You know, like DMC the million stabs move:

(this is actually during dance macabre but you get the idea)

Yeah but the other channeled skills listed above get to do their thing with quickness involved.

100blades should melt people in melee range the way that Rapid Fire melts people at range.

[Psycoprophet.8107]

45 minutes ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

Yeah but the other channeled skills listed above get to do their thing with quickness involved.

100blades should melt people in melee range the way that Rapid Fire melts people at range.

Considering ur rooted, not to mention in melee range vs the safety of being at ranged like rapid fire. Devs have a funny take on balance between skill, that's for sure.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Psycoprophet.8107

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

22 minutes ago, Psycoprophet.8107 said:

Considering ur rooted, not to mention in melee range vs the safety of being at ranged like rapid fire. Devs have a funny take on balance between skill, that's for sure.

There is a severe imbalance between range and melee in this game in all game modes that is not fair to the melee side, especially when some classes are forced by bad range weapons to play in melee range.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Lan Deathrider.5910
typo

[Psycoprophet.8107]

9 minutes ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

There is a sever imbalance between range and melee in this game in all game modes that is not fair to the melee side, especially when some classes are forced by bad range weapons to play in melee range.

I agree. There are also severe imbalances between ranged weapons between the classes, compare war long bow vs ranger long bow. Now some will say oh but u can't do that cuz rangers typically the bow class, to which I say ok let's compare warriors gs or axe to rangers and...... yeah.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Psycoprophet.8107

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

3 hours ago, Psycoprophet.8107 said:

I agree. There are also severe imbalances between ranged weapons between the classes, compare war long bow vs ranger long bow. Now some will say oh but u can't do that cuz rangers typically the bow class, to which I say ok let's compare warriors gs or axe to rangers and...... yeah.

If the people who make that argument are in any way serious then they should then acknowledge that fighting a warrior in melee should be a losing battle for them by default.

[oscuro.9720]

7 hours ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@oscuro.9720, all things I've calculated and posted about in the past in threads long since buried. It's good to see someone else produce the same work and conclusions. 

@Josh Davis.7865, forgive me for @'ing you again, but this is a great example for you and the balance team to review. You've stated in the Engi Rifle rework that skill 2 should be a damage positive skill. Well, Hundred Blades is barely damage positive, and comes with a large drawback with the self root. As Oscuro states in his post, to bring it on par with the AVERAGE of other channeled skills it would have to have a 1.25-1.5s cast time (depending if you include the Guardian outlier or not), or higher damage values.  Greatsword on warrior isn't the only one showing it's age like this either. Swords (both hands), Hammer, Maces (both hands), OH Dagger, Longbow, and even Rifle despite the ammo rework are all subpar weapons. 

thank you. I would like to add (reiterate) that I do think that a 1.25-1.5s cast time would be broken/unhealthy for the game. Somewhere around 2-2.5 with a higher multiplier is probably more reasonable, as it’s just pushing the limits of most stun durations, preventing an overload of damage.

 

With warrior having so many stuns, having too low a cast time could be a serious problem (think; being able to land a full 100blades, arcing, and whirlwind in one CC). At 2-2.5s with a stronger multi, you’ll still be able to get off a combo with quickness, or land 100 in its entirety in Its base state if they are out of breaks. 
 

4 hours ago, Psycoprophet.8107 said:

Considering ur rooted, not to mention in melee range vs the safety of being at ranged like rapid fire. Devs have a funny take on balance between skill, that's for sure.

Yes, there’s some interesting cost-benefit trade offs going on in this game. Rapid fire is actually one of the more balanced skills imo. Really, the most egregiously imbalanced skill seems to be 100blades. Many of the others are within the realm of reasonable balance, either due to added effect (projectile block, evade frame) or condition application, which cannot be neglected in this case. For example, if a channel applies 12 poison, it should, understandably, do less damage. 
 

The other thing to take into account is cool down. Longer cool down should equal a greater net effect. So you may get a skill with a 20s CD doing the same damage as a Ghastly Claws, while also providing additional effects. The real question becomes what effects are worth more and what effects are worth less, and what tradeoffs impose the proper costs for those high-impact effects. This is something im thinking can be modeled, but we shall see.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

@oscuro.9720, indeed. I've called for a 2s cast time on 100 blades many times due to the reasons you state in this thread, a damage increase as well may be need too I the end, though I'd settle for the damage to no longer be back loaded.

[oscuro.9720]

1 minute ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@oscuro.9720, indeed. I've called for a 2s cast time on 100 blades many times due to the reasons you state in this thread, a damage increase as well may be need too I the end, though I'd settle for the damage to no longer be back loaded.

Well, I was adding this to the op, but saw your response, so I’ll at it as a comment. My specific recommendation is to make the C/S around 2.0 to start with a blended approach of cast time and coefficient. Numerically, this would specifically be;

3.6 coefficient for the 8x strike (a 0.8 increase) and a 1.0 coefficient for the final strike (a .2 increase), for a total multiplier of 4.6. Cast time should then be reduced to 2.25s, resulting in a C/S of 2.044, and an auto attack ratio of 2.089.

 

While this is still weaker than other melee channels, warrior does have other considerations to take into account. 2.25s cast makes it butt up against the duration of our long stuns, meaning it’s possible to land the whole chain, potentially more with quickness.

 

I will expand more upon this in the next post I make on this topic, which will be an extensive comparison of channel skills C/S to hundred blades.

[Zuko.7132]

It’s been clear for years that this skill has needed a pretty big buff. I’ve seen this kind of analysis pop up quite a few times, but I’ve yet to see any changes implemented. Hopefully this post helps the issue reach critical mass.